New Pit rule? Must Pit VCO3 every month?

[Miller]

@whole bean

Who said anything about a board rule. You seem to think I view cliques as necessarily bad. I don’t. They serve a purpose. Sometimes people want to communicate “exclusivley” (if only for a while) with other of like tastes or interests on a certain topic. You’re right, it’s not against the rules. It’s fine. If it is exclusive, it’s a clique.

I disagree with you about cliques being “necessarily bad.” I’d say the word has a definite negative connotation. But even if I’m wrong in the abstract, in the specific context of this thread, cliques were mentioned as a defect in the board culture. If you use “clique” to mean simply, “People who share a common interest,” then one cannot argue that there are no cliques on the board. But the original mention of the term in this thread was as an actively exclusionary device, one used to seperate and elevate the “Kool Kids” while putting down other posters, and that is the specific usage of the word that most people here seem to be objecting to.

[whole_bean]

@Miller

I disagree with you about cliques being “necessarily bad.” I’d say the word has a definite negative connotation. But even if I’m wrong in the abstract, in the specific context of this thread, cliques were mentioned as a defect in the board culture. If you use “clique” to mean simply, “People who share a common interest,” then one cannot argue that there are no cliques on the board. But the original mention of the term in this thread was as an actively exclusionary device, one used to seperate and elevate the “Kool Kids” while putting down other posters, and that is the specific usage of the word that most people here seem to be objecting to.

Well, I don’t think exclusive is necessarily objectively negative, though it seems that way to the excluded. Believe me, if those snobs at Harvard only knew what they had coming :: shakes fist :: Wait-listed my ass!!!

[Miller]

@whole bean

Well, I don’t think exclusive is necessarily objectively negative, though it seems that way to the excluded.

Sure, sure. I’m just saying that a “clique” is an example of the negative kind of exclusiveness. At least, that’s how it was originally being used in this thread.

[wonky]

@whole bean

To the extent that like minded posters have clustered and formed bonds created by common interests and in doing so, either by the extent of their bonds with one another, the esorteric nature of their interest, etc., effectivley excluded others, they have formed (unwittingly or not) a clique.

Er, so the entire board is a clique? Because the whole Dope fits this definition.

[whole_bean]

@jsgoddess

Er, so the entire board is a clique? Because the whole Dope fits this definition.

sure, in a way. No one would argue that social fraternities aren’t cliques, but there are also cliques within fraternities.

[Cat_Whisperer]

@sinjin

I didn’t notice before, but that thread ended with exactly the right post. featherlou, if you’re reading this: my hat is off to you.

What’d I do again? Oh yeah. Thanks, man. I thought it was a good one, myself. I don’t suppose the kids on the board would have got it.